1. an atheist, who discovers that there is a God after all, so he is gonna face eternal suffering etc...

or

2. a religious person, who discovers that there is no God but only Nothingness?

Yeah, yeah, I know that the question contains logical (but who cares about logic when it comes to spirituality?!) objection: in the case of 2. a religious man couldn't in fact be surprised/disappointed, because there wouldn't be ANYTHING to be disappointed in (to be disappointed at), so there is only atheists they should be worried.
On the other hand, one may assert that religious people also have to be careful, because they still have to pass last check with Saint Peter.

So there is a little bit of abstraction is needed in order to face the question.

By far the most likely outcome is neither will find out a dam thing since nobody, even if there IS a god, would give a rats asss about what happens to humans, we being more like an experiment at best and it would just assign another experiment if the race offed itself.

this is Pascal's Wager
[q] "God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. (It's not optional.)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
[/q]

It's pure "logic" what Pascal tried to sell.
I am talking about surprise as such.

Originally posted by vandervelde1. an [b]atheist, who discovers that there is a God after all, so he is gonna face eternal suffering etc...

or

2. a religious person, who discovers that there is no God but only Nothingness?

Yeah, yeah, I know that the question contains logical (but who cares about logic when it comes to spirituality?!) objection: in the case of 2. a ...[text shortened]... int Peter.

So there is a little bit of abstraction is needed in order to face the question.[/b]

This would be pascal's wager... again.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

You are making the false assumption that there are only two options.

Now it is evidently true that there is either an afterlife or there isn't...

However in the event that there is an afterlife the conditions for entry of said afterlife being set by
a god or gods there is way more than one option.

You assume that an atheist would automatically face eternal suffering for not believing in the god.

However in the event that the god/s value good works and living a moral life over worshiping that
god then the atheist who lived a moral life might get in where the theist who lived a devout but immoral
life wont.

Or the god might value reason over faith and reward those who didn't just blindly believe in a god with no
evidence.

Also you miss the option of the theist discovering that there is an afterlife but it's for a different god and
religion from the one they worshipped.

Now obviously if anyone dies and discovers that there is an afterlife and that they were faced with an eternity
of suffering for guessing wrongly as to what religion to believe and god/s to worship then that person is going
to be pissed.

However I don't see any particular difference between those who didn't believe in any god and those who believed
in the wrong god/s in this instance.

And no god/s that are prepared to torture people for eternity for not guessing that they exist and worshiping them
despite having been given no evidence of their existence whatsoever is not worthy of being worshipped.

Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd no god/s that are prepared to torture people for eternity for not guessing that they exist and worshiping them
despite having been given no evidence of their existence whatsoever is not worthy of being worshipped.

There's an old joke like this.

A very devout evangelist lived in a house in a flood plain, but was not worried because he felt that if there were a flood, God would save him.

Sure enough, the rainy season that year was prodigious, resulting in a rare 100-year flood that flooded nearly the entire valley.

Amid the rising waters, he promptly climbed to the roof where he started praying and awaited the hand of God to remove him to safety.

Soon enough, his neighbor came by in a motorboat and called to him to climb aboard. The evangelist said, "No need, God will save me."

A little while later, the Red Cross came by in a bigger motorboat and called to him to come with them. The evangelist said, "No need, God will save me. There are others further down the valley that need you more than I do."

Finally a short time later a helicopter came by and dropped a line with a soldier on it to whisk him off the roof. The soldier said, "We're evacuating the area, this may be your last chance to be saved." The evangelist said, "Don't worry about me, God will save me. Go save some others who need you more." After some minutes of arguing, the helicopter finally left without him.

Of course the river rose higher and the evangelist drowned and in due time was brought before St. Peter. The evangelist said to him, "I thought God would save me, what happened?" St. Peter calmly said, "We sent two motorboats and a helicopter for you, what more did you want?"

---

You say God is prepared to torture you for eternity for "not guessing that they exist despite having been given no evidence of their existence whatsoever". This is childish to throw this back on God. Exactly how many faithful Christians do you know? How many do you HAVE to know before you realize the truth? "It's God's fault" doesn't exactly buy it here. It's YOUR fault for not listening to the people He's sent to try to show you the way. I've told you countless times that Faith is the way. Faith will show you the truth. But you'd rather sit behind your castle walls, secure in the knowledge that you must be right when any number of us have said, "No, you're wrong." How much do you expect God to do to save one sinner in the world? If that sinner is recalcitrant in the extreme, don't you expect God to give up and concentrate on the ones He CAN save? This is WHY you have Free Will. So none can say, "How can God screw me like this?" The fact is, you screwed yourself by hardening your heart to Him.

Originally posted by vanderveldethis is Pascal's Wager
[q] "God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. (It's not optional.)
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain al ...[text shortened]... /q]

It's pure "logic" what Pascal tried to sell.
I am talking about surprise as such.

The logic of this wager is no better than the logic behind my assertion that:
5389561346629624862162 has a fifty-fifty shot at being your favourite number...either it is your favourite number or it isn't!

Correctly classifying the argument is not necessarily addressing it. For some reason I have never been too overwhelmed by people who can quickly say "Oh that's a Pascal's Wager problem. Been there done that."

Good for you. You recognize a Pascal's Wager argument. So that's the end of it ? Is that just an answer to avoid making a choice ?

Originally posted by jaywillCorrectly [b]classifying the argument is not necessarily addressing it. For some reason I have never been too overwhelmed by people who can quickly say "Oh that's a Pascal's Wager problem. Been there done that."

Good for you. You recognize a Pascal's Wager argument. So that's the end of it ? Is that just an answer to avoid making a choice ?[/b]

Pascal's Wager is so obviously bad an argument that you ought to be able to work out for yourself why it is bad. Rwingett is just trying to save the rest of us some time.

Originally posted by SwissGambitPascal's Wager is so obviously bad an argument that you ought to be able to work out for yourself why it is bad. Rwingett is just trying to save the rest of us some time.

So the Atheist "Amen Corner" says "he's just saving us time."

The next time I post a video, maybe I also am just saving time for some Christian theists. Deal ?

Originally posted by vandervelde1. an [b]atheist, who discovers that there is a God after all, so he is gonna face eternal suffering etc...

or

2. a religious person, who discovers that there is no God but only Nothingness?

Yeah, yeah, I know that the question contains logical (but who cares about logic when it comes to spirituality?!) objection: in the case of 2. a ...[text shortened]... int Peter.

So there is a little bit of abstraction is needed in order to face the question.[/b]

If the religious person ACTUALLY experienced in its fullness the realization that there is no God but only nothingness, (an experience which seems impossible to have, but let's go with it) then that experience could be horrific. It's hard to know if I can appreciate what it's like to be a religious person in that situation, and not just the one I used to be, but someone to whom it is the central fact of their life. Comments on how horrific that would be, are welcome.

OTOH, some of the depictions of eternal suffering are pretty horrific.

Naturally, I would choose whichever I thought would be the lesser of two horrific experiences. Who wouldn't?

It seems obvious but inauthentic to say I'd rather be the religious person; obvious because any pain would be momentary, but inauthentic because I may not be appreciating how horrific it would be to be religious and find out it was tragically wrong.

So I'd rather be whatever I am when the time comes, and I will take responsibility for that. If I die a second from now, I guess it will be as a non-theist. But that's just a guess.

Originally posted by AgergThe logic of this wager is no better than the logic behind my assertion that:
5389561346629624862162 has a fifty-fifty shot at being your favourite number...either it is your favourite number or it isn't!

Originally posted by vandervelde1. an [b]atheist, who discovers that there is a God after all, so he is gonna face eternal suffering etc...

or

2. a religious person, who discovers that there is no God but only Nothingness?

Yeah, yeah, I know that the question contains logical (but who cares about logic when it comes to spirituality?!) objection: in the case of 2. a ...[text shortened]... int Peter.

So there is a little bit of abstraction is needed in order to face the question.[/b]

the theist would be more devastated than disappointed, religion is the most important thing in their life. the atheist would be surprised and then scared of the up and coming eternal suffering. but god would forgive us as 99% of christians are straight laced jobsworths. god will want some good parties to keep eternity interesting so he'll need the atheists. nobody likes an arse kisser, so gods gonna get pretty sick of the christians very quickly and again turn to the atheist for a proper conversation.